The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt for establishing the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of acquittal dated 19.10.2005 passed by learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Jamnagar, in Special Case No.3 of 1995, the State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 (1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused were working as Junior Clerk in the office of Sub- Registrar at Jamnagar. That the raiding officer, Shri N.N.Nagar, received private information that some of the employees working in the Marriage Registration Office, Lal Bungalow, Jamnagar, were demanding more money than the fees for getting registration of marriage. Therefore, the police Inspector, ACB, arranged a trap and prepared necessary documents and also got ready one Mukesh Keshavlal Parmar to remain as Punter. Police Inspector, Shri Nagar has summoned two Government employees to remain as panch witnesses. After following necessary procedure, he had handed over currency notes of Rs.150/-, one note of the denomination of Rs.100/- and another of Rs.50/-, which were to be given to the accused in case of demand. Numbers of the notes were mentioned in the preliminary panchnama. That, after following necessary procedure, he kept said notes in the left side pocket of shirt of the punter and he was instructed not to touch the same till the demand is made and if the accused accepts the amount, a signal was to be given to the ACB staff. Thereafter, after drawing preliminary panchnama, signatures of the panchas were taken. Upon reaching the office of the accused, complainant and panch witness no.1 went inside the office of the accused and after they gave signal, panch witness no.2 along with other members of the raiding party reached there. During search of the accused, currency notes were found from one file, which was lying on the table of accused no.1 and numbers of the same tallied with preliminary panchnama. Upon testing under ultraviolet lamp, marks of anthrecene powder were found on the said notes. Therefore, the same were seized and panchnama was carried out and signatures of the panchas were taken. Thereafter, the offence was registered at Jamnagar A.C.B. Police Station. According to the prosecution, after completion of the investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed against the accused.

2.2 On filing of the charge-sheet, the charge was framed against the accused by the learned Judge at the relevant time and the accused pleaded not guilty and the evidence of the prosecution was recorded. Thereafter, after recording of the evidence of the prosecution, statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein the accused have denied of having committed any such offence. After perusing and considering the evidence on record and after hearing both the sides, the trial Court has, ultimately, acquitted the accused – respondents from the charges leveled against them.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, the State has preferred present appeal.

4. Heard Mr.Dharmesh Devnani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State at length and Mr.D.P.Kinariwala, learned advocate for the respondents– accused. Perused the evidence placed on record as well as the impugned judgment of the trial Court.

5. Mr.Dharmesh Devnani, learned APP for the State has vehemently submitted that as the ACB inspector has got information regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by the employees of the marriage registration office, a decoy trap was arranged with the help of punter. Punter and panch witness no.1 went to the office of accused no.1. At that time, accused no.1 demanded bribe of Rs.150/- and the other accused was also present there. Thereafter panchnama was prepared and an amount was recovered from the file and this fact has been proved from the evidence of punter as well as the panch witness and that of investigating officer. While referring to the evidence of the w